Cop accused of putting webcam in boys’ bathroom at Maryland HS

Device was planted without permission, cop under investigation.

Around noon on March 20, a student at Glen Burnie High School in Glen Burnie, Maryland went to an assistant principal at the school to tell him he felt uncomfortable using the bathroom. Why? Because he had discovered a surveillance camera in it an hour and a half earlier.

That triggered an investigation by police and resulted in a 14-year veteran of the Anne Arundel County Police Department going on paid administrative leave when it was discovered that he had purchased the wireless camera and allegedly installed it without the knowledge of the police department or school.

The officer has not been named, but it was indicated that he had been assigned to the police department's Special Services Bureau, which provides "resource" officers for the county's school system. A police spokesperson said that no images or video were found stored on the device, but the device was capable of recording video and had been mounted to the ceiling in plain sight. No other cameras have been found at Glen Burnie H.S. or other county schools.

In a letter to parents, the principal of the high school said that the camera was not part of the school's surveillance system and that the school only monitored public areas by video.

63 Reader Comments

Paid administrative leave...sometimes, it makes sense to me that police officer's punishments are lessened, due to the extreme danger of their work and the snap judgments they must make. But this time...I'm not so sure.

Paid administrative leave...sometimes, it makes sense to me that police officer's punishments are lessened, due to the extreme danger of their work and the snap judgments they must make. But this time...I'm not so sure.

The cop has only been accused so far, he hasn't actually been found to have planted the camera. While it does seem likely that's the outcome in this case, the police force can't just go fire him because he was accused of something and not yet found guilty. What if he wasn't actually the one responsible?

Well it was in plain sight and not connected to anything so I don't think he was being a pervert. What he was actually doing though, is a mystery (practical joke?).

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if he just put it there in some misguided attempt to keep kids from smoking in the bathroom, to make them think they're being watched. Mostly I'm curious how the hell they even figured out he put it in there in the first place.

It is bizarre that anyone would think that putting a camera in a public restroom was a good idea. It is more bizarre that apparently no effort was made to conceal the camera. It makes me wonder if the thought was that kids seeing a camera would be less likely to misbehave. Whatever the reason I'm glad that at least one kid was concerned enough to say something.

If this was truly innocent then it's possibly the most misguided way to do your job as a police officer at a school. Out of context it looks like he's spying on children for his personal benefit. Clearly this was not well thought out.

Paid administrative leave...sometimes, it makes sense to me that police officer's punishments are lessened, due to the extreme danger of their work and the snap judgments they must make. But this time...I'm not so sure.

To be fair, if a football coach had placed the camera, administration would have just looked the other way.

if that camera took video/pics of children's genitals and transmitted it, this guy is in for a world of hurt. The right laws and the wrong DA could consider it transmission of child pornography.

If it did record any video or pictures It would be at least creation of CP -- which I believe is worse than transmission.

To play devils advocate here, nowhere in the article does it state where the camera was pointed. OK, odd that there are no other security cameras at the school and the lone one was in the boys room. That on it's face looks bad, but in theory it could have been pointing at the door or in a direction not leading to compromising video. Also, there was no attempt to hide said camera. Queue 'Somking in the Boys Room'?

It's possible it's wasn't even on and was meant as a deterrent. I would like to think that anyone allowed to be a cop would have been at least smart enough to hide the camera, if the purpose was nefarious.

Weirdly, my first thought here isn't "pervert" but "dumbass". I'm betting it is the bathroom that somehow always smells of smoke even though every time he goes in there nobody has a cig. So to disourage smoking he put the camera in there, not thinking that the headline is going to read "Pervert cop gets his jollies off of little boys in the bathroom!".

It might not be smoking (that's just what it was constantly at my high school). It could be vandalism, drug deals, etc... too.

Paid administrative leave...sometimes, it makes sense to me that police officer's punishments are lessened, due to the extreme danger of their work and the snap judgments they must make. But this time...I'm not so sure.

Paid administrative leave...sometimes, it makes sense to me that police officer's punishments are lessened, due to the extreme danger of their work and the snap judgments they must make. But this time...I'm not so sure.

To be fair, if a football coach had placed the camera, administration would have just looked the other way.

In Anne Arundel County the cop could have shot someone dead and they would have looked away.

My prediction is that the DA will choose not to prosecute.

Quote:

Anne Arundel Co. Police Chief Refuses To Testify In Leopold InvestigationANNAPOLIS, Md. (WJZ)— A stunning twist in the abuse of power scandal surrounding Anne Arundel County Executive John Leopold. The police chief will not testify about what he knows about the spying allegations

Discovery of hundreds of cameras in Anne Arundel buildings triggers fears of spyingWith salacious tales of former county executive John Leopold’s parking-lot trysts still fresh in their minds, Anne Arundel residents this week braced for another round of T.M.I. after the discovery of hundreds of surveillance cameras at county facilities that were said to be under Leopold’s control. The discovery of the cameras sent county leaders into a state of high alert — and imaginations racing.

While some states have laws that declare "audio and video surveillance" to be illegal in privates areas like bathrooms, changing rooms, motel rooms and so forth, it's actually a violation of your constitutional rights for anyone to record you in any fashion while you are in an area where you have an expectation of privacy.

The fourth amendment guarantees you such protections. The law states that you have an "expectation of privacy" when you're in a private area such as a changing room, public restroom, motel room and so on. While surveillance can be set up just outside of these areas, they cannot be placed within these areas because of of this "expectation of privacy". This means that nobody can install any kind of equipment in such an area, not even law enforcement or federal authorities.

If I'm not mistaken, it's also the one law that "The Patriot Act" and "Warrantless Wiretapping" cannot violate.

As akboss said, I think there are some details that are pretty critical as to the importance of this. If he was trying to spot smokers in the restroom, he needs to be censured and removed from the school program. If he was being a pervert, he needs to be thrown in the clink for both the pedophilia and because even if he didn't abuse his position, his position requires that he be held to a higher standard.

(I don't know if it would be legally defined as an abuse of power, necessarily, as IANAL.)

Kind of depends on where in the bathroom it was.Over the urinals pointed straight down or was it pointed at the sinks?

By the door pointed inward or over the stalls?

Questions that I as a juror would want answered.

It doesn't matter. The minute you place a surveillance camera or any other kind of recording device on the inside of the restroom, it becomes a violation of someone's constitutional rights. Also, why is someone recording video of little boys using the restroom? Is there some kind of crime that these little boys are committing?

You questions aren't the ones that they are going to be asking. The question they are going to want answered is "why are police officers installing surveillance equipment inside a high school bathroom to videotape high school boys". It's a violation of the fourth amendment of the constitution and it also marks the police department and the officer or officers involved as being "pedophiles".

We have nothing about the history of the school, I know that at a couple local ones, the bathroom is favored for beating up the annoying, sometimes requiring EMT's and stretchers. If the officer put it there after those sorts of incidents, and put it in the center where it wouldn't have been useful for... purposes other than surveillance for attacks, it could've been legit.Not informing anyone of the plan though doesn't sound promising.

It's hard to find a power source in most bathrooms. Was it actually powered? (The linked article doesn't say.) If not, a misguided attempt at behavior intimidation is a plausible explanation. (Would have been smarter/cheaper to use a dummy shell, though.)

As akboss said, I think there are some details that are pretty critical as to the importance of this. If he was trying to spot smokers in the restroom, he needs to be censured and removed from the school program. If he was being a pervert, he needs to be thrown in the clink for both the pedophilia and because even if he didn't abuse his position, his position requires that he be held to a higher standard.

(I don't know if it would be legally defined as an abuse of power, necessarily, as IANAL.)

As tarwin said, it doesn't matter since just placing it there is against the constitution.

Second of all, why the heck didn't he inform the school and/or the police unit he is working under? I find it hard to believe that he is allowed to set up surveillance cameras without any form of paper trail.

I think what some members here are forgetting is this: the minute you enter the door that leads from the public area (i.e., the common area such as hallways or room areas that are exterior to the restrooms), you enter an area that is considered by the constitution to be a private area where you have an expectation of privacy.

The problem is that some are confusing "public restrooms" as meaning "public areas where you can install surveillance systems. It doesn't matter if the bathroom is a public bathroom, for the purposes of recording devices, it is not an area where you are allowed to install such devices. Every public restroom has a large door that marks it as "restroom". Anyone who claims that they are allowed to install such equipment needs to read the constitution, which is considered to be the law that supercedes all laws.

The officer involved in this flap cannot even explained himself out of this incident.

It's hard to find a power source in most bathrooms. Was it actually powered? (The linked article doesn't say.) If not, a misguided attempt at behavior intimidation is a plausible explanation. (Would have been smarter/cheaper to use a dummy shell, though.)

Power source? It's a damn wireless camera!

What kind of wireless camera doesn't come with a battery?

This dumb cop will fry in PR hell, and hopefully (for his sake) will be kept segregated from gen. pop. for a good five years. It'll be a cold, cold day if he is somehow found 'innocent'.

My initial reaction was "pervert". About 5 seconds later my opinion changed to "well-meaning dumbassery".As akboss said, I think there are some details that are pretty critical as to the importance of this. If he was trying to spot smokers in the restroom, he needs to be censured and removed from the school program. If he was being a pervert, he needs to be thrown in the clink for both the pedophilia and because even if he didn't abuse his position, his position requires that he be held to a higher standard.

It doesn't even matter why he put the camera there, he doesn't own the school, and (I'm assuming) he doesn't have a warrant to start putting cameras wherever he feels like.

I can't put cameras in your house (without your consent), no matter the reason. Cops can't either, without a warrant.

The cop has only been accused so far, he hasn't actually been found to have planted the camera. While it does seem likely that's the outcome in this case, the police force can't just go fire him because he was accused of something and not yet found guilty. What if he wasn't actually the one responsible?

Seems to me a lot of people go to jail after being accused and before being found guilty. I'm sure all those that go to jail and end up not being charged, or found not guilty would love the option of a week or two of paid vacation at home instead of sitting on a cot in county.

If it's found to have been a dummy camera there to give the illusion of monitoring to deter graffiti and the like, I could see him getting a reprimand, but definitely reassigned. Why he didn't clear this with his CO is beyond me, but you know what they say about how disturbingly uncommon common sense can be. As far as fired, doubtful at best.

If it's an actual working camera and it had a battery in it, I don't see him keeping his job, plus he'll be known as "the idiot who put a video camera in a boys' bathroom." Unions are there for a reason, but what the officer did was "eat your own shit thinking it's ice cream" levels of stupid. Best not to entrust law enforcement power to someone like that. If it was found to have been used, thus broadcast images or video, God help that officer, because the American justice system won't.

Sean Gallagher / Sean is Ars Technica's IT Editor. A former Navy officer, systems administrator, and network systems integrator with 20 years of IT journalism experience, he lives and works in Baltimore, Maryland.